Source: law/NOTES-18usc1343.md
# Research notes — 18 U.S.C. § 1343 Rebuilt 2026-11-10 after rejecting the initial caption/fragment anchors. Scope: core property fraud, statutory communication nexus, and an explicit boundary to §1346. This is author research, not independent QA approval. ## Source and interpretation boundaries Canonical statute: `catalog/federal/title_18/section_1343/title18_sec1343_4b76eb3ae6f7/1343_fraud_by_wire_radio_or_television_whoever_having_devise_0001/index.html`; IR `ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1343`, SHA1 `1c98e294287a38d60933f990cee3035f6dbfca5e`, 1453 Unicode characters. All text/rule offsets are exact end-exclusive Python character indices into the read-only IR. No source text was repaired or normalized. Court opinions with 60,000-character records may be truncated; only the stated windows/quoted portions are used. The statutory words supply scheme, money/property, conduct and execution purpose. Materiality, fraudulent intent's contours, traditional-property/object limitations, domestic-application analysis, and no-reliance/no-completed-damages rules are judicial constructions. The code's disjunctive wording does not eliminate the property target for ordinary fraud. Materiality is its own conjunct, not buried in scheme gloss. Kousisis rejects net-loss/intent-to-impoverish requirements without abolishing the property target or materiality. Private RICO injury, causation, remedies, penalties/enhancements, conspiracy, and aiding/abetting are not encoded as mail/wire elements. Section 1346 is cross-referenced as a distinct honest-services theory; its boundary node is not an asserted complete claim. ## Contextual corpus reading log The capped `cited_by()` list supplied Runner and the circuit/district candidates. Kousisis is listed for §1343 and expressly construes the shared mail/wire language. Neder was retrieved directly from canonical IR. Cases screened but rejected as main anchors included De Nieto (identity-theft/sentencing focus), Gorrell (tax-evasion appeal), and Freed (much of relevant discussion concerns derivative liability); procedural mention was insufficient. ### United States v. Runner (143 F.4th 146, 2025) - Pin: 143 F.4th 146 (2d Cir. 2025), §II.A–B. [Corpus source](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f4th/volume_143/146/index.html); IR `/f4th/143/146`, SHA1 `dd8219912caf5b4d2c3e19cb64a91f8836f078ac`, chars=50564. - Read window `14410:23887`: Elements, materially deceptive scheme, and explicit rejection after Kousisis of the former inducement-only exemption. - Read window `25264:29265`: Psychic letters induced payment for promised individualized services and objects; sufficient deliberate deception for property transfer. - Read window `37768:42954`: Older quality/price and harm instructions were more favorable to the defendant; do not canonize their pre-Kousisis phrasing. ### Kousisis v. United States (605 U.S. 114, 2025) - Pin: 605 U.S. 114, 121–134 (2025), majority §§II.A–B. [Corpus source](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/clus/volume_605/114/index.html); IR `/us/605/114`, SHA1 `860fc77cb777643d15f6fb05358309e5dc329d10`, chars=60000. - Read window `6800:36000`: Read facts and majority through common-law analysis: contracts for bridge/station paintwork, sham disadvantaged supplier; property aimed at was government payment, even though work had equal value. - Read window `35500:48000`: Materiality indispensable but precise competing tests left open; Kelly regulatory-interest and incidental-cost limits and Ciminelli right-to-control rejection expressly preserved. Footnote 2 applies common language to mail fraud. ### Neder v. United States (527 U.S. 1, 1999) - Pin: 527 U.S. 1, 20–25 (1999), majority Part III. [Corpus source](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/us/volume_527/0001_01/index.html); IR `/us/527/0001-01`, SHA1 `33412a8a9e886242007cfbf71e172757125b18dc`, chars=60000. - Read window `30300:38300`: Statutory language does not expressly say materiality, but settled common-law fraud supplies it. Reliance and completed damages are not offense elements. Distinguish preceding tax/harmless-error discussion from substantive fraud holding. ### United States v. Hagen (917 F.3d 668, 2019) - Pin: 917 F.3d 668, 672–675 (8th Cir. 2019), seasonal counts. [Corpus source](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_917/0668_01/index.html); IR `/f3d/917/0668-01`, SHA1 `aa226b99ba16b5f8c421f3e45f44f7bb11fe8245`, chars=20562. - Read window `7800:17000`: Some cattle-grazing transactions supported breach/nonpayment but not fraudulent intent at receipt of payment. Counts based on late apology letters failed furtherance; asserted lulling theory lacked evidence. Other season/counts affirmed; result is transaction specific. ### United States v. Boliaux (915 F.3d 493, 2019) - Pin: 915 F.3d 493, 495–496 (7th Cir. 2019). [Corpus source](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_915/0493_01/index.html); IR `/f3d/915/0493-01`, SHA1 `9027baa98fdef0514dfd8026775671e12ebcae08`, chars=13252. - Read window `0:5500`: Duplicate vehicle titles/multiple loans and diverted customer payments. Appellate court expressly adopts district-court sufficiency reasoning: charged payments traveled IL to PA/OH, advanced scheme, and were foreseeable through defendant's control of processing. Not personal transmission requirement. ### United States v. Buncich (926 F.3d 361, 2019) - Pin: 926 F.3d 361, 366–367 (7th Cir. 2019), §II.A. [Corpus source](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_926/0361_01/index.html); IR `/f3d/926/0361-01`, SHA1 `f5550822a0db124a59cd6908b2ca53f176d1d5e2`, chars=18987. - Read window `8300:10392`: Sheriff towing-bribe prosecution under honest-services theory. Bribery/kickback limitation stated. Three counts reversed for missing charged wire transfers, two supported; proof of corrupt scheme alone does not prove transmission. ### Bascuñán v. Elsaca (927 F.3d 108, 2019) - Pin: 927 F.3d 108, 121–123 (2d Cir. 2019), domestic-conduct analysis. [Corpus source](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_927/0108_01/index.html); IR `/f3d/927/0108-01`, SHA1 `45d1e97232345e215ffc97dffff15b6ae84bcfb2`, chars=52111. - Read window `30500:35000`: Civil RICO cross-border diversion allegations. Mail/wire use is statutory focus; domestic use must be a core component for domestic application. This is not the ordinary furtherance test for all domestic fraud. ## Current primary-source verification Checked official Supreme Court opinions on 2026-11-10: [Kousisis, majority pp. 5–18](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-909_f2q3.pdf), [Ciminelli, majority pp. 5–10](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1170_b97d.pdf), and [Kelly, majority pp. 6–13](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1059_e2p3.pdf). Kousisis permits materially fraudulent inducement without net economic loss; Ciminelli excludes deprivation of economic decision information standing alone; Kelly requires a property objective, not incidental governmental expense. These checks supplement the pinned corpus; web PDF text is not silently substituted for IR quotations. After preliminary OLRC URLs returned 404, the [official section page](https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-136/t18/s1343/) was successfully checked, displaying currency through Public Law 119-136 (2026-10-22); its operative offense language matches the local statutory hooks. The IR hash still identifies the local snapshot, not the web page. ## Verification and limits `python3 neov2/tools/lawdsl.py check` passes for this file: exact statutory/case quotes, header pin, and hierarchy. Claims explicitly name defined element IDs. Manual audit separates holding from rejected argument, criminal elements from civil RICO predicates, and mail/wire property fraud from §1346. Court-specific domestic-application and materiality formulations are labeled. Independent QA2 substantive review remains required. The research covers the core offense, not every sentencing variant, derivative-liability rule, or honest-services issue. ## Round 5 re-audit — 2026-11-10 Re-read the entire canonical text and [current OLRC §1343](https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-136/t18/s1343/). Added the omitted express transmission-content span (writings/signs/signals/pictures/sounds) to `wire`; causation, interstate/foreign transmission, and execution purpose remain distinct conjuncts. No offense exception appears in this section; disaster/financial-institution language is a penalty enhancement, already outside the core claim. Section 1346 changes the theory's target and is not an exception defeating otherwise established property fraud. Reopened Kousisis `17900:20800;40400:42500`, Neder `36700:38300`, Runner `27500:29200`, Hagen `13800:15900`, Boliaux's adopted sufficiency reasoning at `3000:4500`, Buncich `8500:10300`, and Bascuñán `30500:35000`. Boliaux supports reasonably foreseeable wire use; its personal involvement in payment processing is factual support, not a universal control-of-business element. Buncich's counts I–III failed for lack of the charged transmissions even though there was a corrupt scheme. Its honest-services posture is now explicit in the operative furtherance gloss. Bascuñán's domestic-core-component test remains expressly circuit/posture-qualified, separate from ordinary furtherance. No mismatched case identity or rejected-argument-as-holding pin was found. Property/object and intent are now expressly labeled judicial constructions. Traditional intangible property remains eligible; regulatory interests and mere right-to-control information do not. Kousisis rejects a net-loss element without eliminating property as the scheme's object, materiality, fraudulent intent, or the charged transmission. Its unresolved competing materiality formulations remain disclosed. Verified against [official Kousisis](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-909_f2q3.pdf), majority pp. 5–19. No new case rule was invented from that web text; existing canonical IR quotes remain exact. Known limits: the source cases do not settle every disputed electronic-routing proof question or every circuit's extraterritoriality formulation. The formula requires actual interstate/foreign transmission; foreseeable wire use cannot replace that proof. Full §1346 fiduciary/bribery issues and enhancement allegations are outside this core property-fraud formula. All prior CASE-consumed element IDs remain unchanged.